July so far has been exceptionally dry, warm and sunny, but a notable change in the weather is expected in the next 36 hours.

At Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, less than 2mm of rain has fallen so far this month.

It’s fair to say that farmers and gardeners are now very keen for rain, although reservoir stocks are still healthy in Yorkshire following last summer’s washout.

The hot spell has, understandably, dominated the media.

It has been the only prolonged hot spell since July 2006 – which itself turned out to be the hottest July on record on Met Office figures which date back to 1910.

Temperatures at Heathrow and Northolt this afternoon reached 33.5C (93F) making it the hottest day anywhere in the UK since July 20th 2006.

But the spell of hot weather has not been in the same league as that recorded during the record-breaking summer of 1976.

That year, temperatures were higher than 32C (90F) for 15 consecutive days from late June to early July somewhere in the UK.

That said, with temperatures soaring again today, we’ve had 17 consecutive days with temperatures exceeding 28C, equalling the sequence set in 1995, but not as long as the sequence set in 1997 (19 days)

In 1976, there were 22 such days.

But with the jet stream expected to slip southwards from its current position, the weather will be more unsettled for the rest of July and into early August.

Warnings are in place for the next 36 hours, as developing thunderstorms could lead to local flooding as a result of torrential rain falling on to the sun-baked land.

After the thundery breakdown it will though remain warm into the weekend, and although more unsettled, there will still be some sunshine at times - together with a risk of further heavy showers.

Here in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire next week could feel very different, with temperatures closer to normal for the time of the year as low pressure dominates the our weather bringing rain to most areas.

“ Since you wish to appear knowledgeable on the subject why not tell me where the missing data has come from. “

I'll repeat from my previous post:

'As a wild guess I would say the filter has been truncated rather than padded but I could be wrong. I could look at the data and work it out but it really isn't that important.'

If my guess is correct there is no missing data. Yes, it would have been nice if the method had been explained but get real. It's a 5 point smooth not 11 or 31. There are two points with reduced data. If you consider this to be some form of elaborate plan to mislead readers then that's your problem.

For an insight into how 'real' climate scientists really do mislead with smoothing see:

“ Not only did I give a whole page of them “by the clowns at SkS” but that page showed the rebuttals by SKS. “

The quotes attributed to Richard Muller are completely uncontentious outside of the zealot filled world of SkS and the like and the 'rebuttals' are no such thing.

As I said in my earlier post on this subject “Richard Muller's 'Skeptic' label came about because he recognized and publicly acknowledged the flaws in the work of Michael Mann”.

Most of the quotes give no opinion on climate change but are simply criticisms of team methodologies as I have already noted or alarmist overstatement, e.g. 'Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice'. The 'rebuttal', 'Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species', may or may not be true but it does not show Muller's statement to be false. Both statements could be true; the 'rebuttal' is not a rebuttal.

Where Muller does mention climate change he merely states the obvious that no one knows how solar variations affect the climate or what proportion of climate change is natural. All very mainstream really.

Then again, according to SkS 'What the Science Says' is that “Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books”.

A very scientific rebuttal indeed from the inhabitants of the tree-hut.

“You did claim that it was a "skeptic trick", and I pointed out that the same "trick" was used by the MO.”

Ah but it isn’t a trick when the MO do it ;-)

Seriously, the MO do it for many on their graphs but not when discussing the ‘present’ in this way, and you gave the FAQ from them on techniques used. They clearly state that this data will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. I assume that this ‘research’ continue the series by repeating the final value which as I said will cause a flattening of the graph in the ‘present’. I assume you agree? Wood for Trees graphing doesn’t extend averages, so averaged data ends with the last available data.

And it is a ‘trick’ used by ‘skeptics’. I have seen it used before, including recently by Andrew Neil on BBC Sunday Politics, though it might have been ignorance in his case as I believe it was a MO graph he showed. This just goes to show that ‘armature climatologists’ should not be left interpretating others data and graphs when they don’t understand what’s involved.

But Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who wrote ‘On Present halting of Global Warming’, even though not a climatologist, is qualified in geophysics, and must understand the issue of manufacturing end point data and I assume he graphed this data for his paper. So I believe that it is definitely a ‘trick’ in this case. He doesn’t clearly state why it was done, what method was used or how it might affect the ‘present’ results. I can think of no other reason for such shoddy work other than to emphasise his claimed ‘halt’.

It is a shame that some ‘skeptics’ on here seem to have no problem with manufactured future data in this case.

Let me get this right, you asked for me to either give some examples of sceptical statements by Muller or admit I was wrong. Not only did I give a whole page of them “by the clowns at SkS” but that page showed the rebuttals by SKS. Do you think Muller didn’t say what he is quoted to have? Do you think SKS just made them up?

Clearly you are not mature enough to have a discussion based on the facts. You ignore most of them and cherry pick ones you think confirm your biased beliefs, rather than let the facts determine those beliefs.

73.RobWansbeck

“If you had any real understanding of smoothing..”

Since you wish to appear knowledgeable on the subject why not tell me where the missing data has come from. It should be in the ‘research’, and it’s use justified. Don’t claim to be sceptical if you can’t be sceptical of manufactured data just because it supports you belief.

"I never claimed that there are not ways to manufacture data to fill in the ends of such an average. I am stating that this is not a case for doing such. "

You did claim that it was a "skeptic trick", and I pointed out that the same "trick" was used by the MO.

"Firstly can you tell from this ‘research’ which method was used to create future temperatures? I can’t see where it even mentions doing it never mind the method. I suspect that the last data points have just been averaged over and over, which will cause a flattening of the graph."

If you haven't found it then I am not going to waste time looking for it. I agree that when such a method is used, it should be clearly explained.

"Secondly can you imagine any instance when manufacturing future data for a paper 'On Present Halting of Global Warming' would be appropriate? The ‘present’ is the most important. Creating data to graph the present is the most inappropriate thing I can think of."

I am sure that this technique is used in all sorts of research. I think it is appropriate if exlained.I have also tried to replicate the graph and as far as I can tell, the author has used figures of about 0.5c and 0.45c for 2013 and 2014, in order to extend the average. The figure of about 0.5c is necessary to produce the increase in the average for 2011.I think this all arises from the opinion that moving averages should be shown against the centre year of the period being averaged. It is considered bad practice to show it against the last period being averaged, but I prefer to do that, since it doesn't require any figures to be "made up". You could just stop the average at the point where genuine figures are used but as the MO points out, this often leads to confusion when some people think that the figure are out of date. Also, if you use Excel to calculate the averages there doesn't seem to be any facility (at least in my version), to centre the average and it always shows it at the end of the period.

If you had any real understanding of smoothing you would have recognized my reference to Mannian end-point pinning where rather than pad with the final value, as QV noted, the data is reflected about both axis for 'improved' results.

You would also have understood my reference to 2010 and why smoothing tends to use odd numbers.

(as a wild guess I would say the filter has been truncated rather than padded but I could be wrong. I could look at the data and work it out but it really isn't that important.)

Clearly you don’t really understand how smoothing of data is achieved, the reasons for doing it and its limitations. It has nothing to do with when the smoothed stopped, it is the fact that it didn’t.

Let me try to explain and I’m sure perhaps QV, who clearly sees the issue, can add to anything that I haven’t made clear. When a smoothed average is calculated it averages the values around it. newdwr54 has produced a 5 year average and I think the graph, figure 5b does the same as it claims 5-point smoothing.

So for example the smoothed point in the middle of 1998 would use all the data for the rest of 1998, all of 1999 and 2000, averaged with the preceding data of 1998, all of 1997 and 1996, giving 5 years. It doesn’t take a genus, coz I ain’t one, to release that if the graph finishes in 2012 the last smoothed data point using a 5 year average has to finish in the middle of 2009. This clearly has a smoothed line up to 2012.

So Rob perhaps you can tell me where the data comes from for the points between mid 2009 and 2012 when all that data won’t even exist for about another year?

60.QuaesoVeritas

I never claimed that there are not ways to manufacture data to fill in the ends of such an average. I am stating that this is not a case for doing such.

Firstly can you tell from this ‘research’ which method was used to create future temperatures? I can’t see where it even mentions doing it never mind the method. I suspect that the last data points have just been averaged over and over, which will cause a flattening of the graph.

Secondly can you imagine any instance when manufacturing future data for a paper 'On Present Halting of Global Warming' would be appropriate? The ‘present’ is the most important. Creating data to graph the present is the most inappropriate thing I can think of.

Blog Updates

Subscribe to the blog using:

Recently Commented

About Paul

I worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for nearly 15 years locally and at the international unit, after graduating with first class honours in Geophysics and Planetary physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1992. I then joined the BBC in October 2007, where I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people's everyday lives.

BBC Local

Get the latest news, sport, weather, travel and features from your local area.